Rob, grandpa of Ryan, Trevor, Devon & Hannah wrote: > ... She took > her concerns to her supervisor, who was working under the assistant director > of > the department. The assistant director, who is no longer with the SEC, later > married the perpetratorTMs niece. The investigatorTMs claims turned out to be > consistent with the case the Justice Department eventually brought against > the > perpetrator. When the investigator brought her concerns to her supervisor, > however, he directed her to concentrate on an investigation of mutual funds.
I thought the power of accounting systems was that they were immune to a single inside bad actor due to the distribution of checks and balances, meaning that a single bad actor cannot possibly cover all the ways "irregular" activities would be uncovered. Apparently such considerations don't enter into the design and operation of SEC auditing and/or the management and reporting structures thereof... You'd like to think that institutions such as the SEC were built in such a way that "evidence-backed reasonable suspicion" was heavily rewarded, rather than being able to be swept under the carpet by a single more senior staff member. Maybe a revamped SEC, not labouring under what must now (even in the US among thinking folk) be the totally bankrupt notion that "small government" is necessarily better, has a chance of getting these kinds of things right (or, at least, a lot better)??? Regards, Nick FitzGerald _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
